State Of Haryana vs Uma Kinker on 7 August, 2009

RSA No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M)            1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                               RSA No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M)

                               Date of Decision: August 07, 2009


State of Haryana                                        ...... Appellant

      Versus

Uma Kinker                                              ...... Respondent


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

Present:     Mr.Deepak Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
             for the appellant.
                    ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent and setting aside the

orders whereby the dates of his first ACP and 2nd ACP have been changed

to his prejudice.

The following questions have been proposed:-

i) Whether the judgment passed by learned District Judge, Jind
is sustainable in the eyes of law?

ii) Whether the temporary service can be treated as regular
service for the purpose of granting first and second ACP?

Question No. (i) is a general question. Question No.(ii), in my

opinion, has been wrongly worded. It has been found as a fact that the

respondent was earlier working on daily wages since August, 1979. By
RSA No. 2928 of 2009 (O&M) 2

order dated 31.1.83 he was offered appointment wherein it was also

mentioned that he would be on probation for 240 days.

Learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the period

of service from 1.2.83 up to the completion of 240 days probation would

be temporary service and such temporary service would not be counted for

grant of ACP scheme. However, I find that the learned lower Appellate

Court has considered this aspect and has relied upon order Ex.P5 dated

11.5.2001 passed by the appellant itself wherein it was mentioned that the

respondent was having regular service w.e.f. 1.2.1983.

In this view of the matter question No. (ii), which, though is a

question of law, does not arise in this case.

Consequently the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.

Applications, if any, are disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

August 07, 2009
sunita